Originally Posted by SteveZ

Bucco,

Give it up.

A discussion can only occur when both parties have an open mind devoid of blind fanaticism. When objectiviy gives way to blind fanaticism, communication ends.

There are those who will follow a Pied Piper wherever he leads, despite who his associates are, what his background includes, and no matter how limited his experience is. They refuse to believe that there could be anything wrong with his rhetoric in any way. A Pied Piper is the perfect person. Anyone else is the just is an old-fogey jerk with a temper, and all who question the Pied Piper are misguided idiots and heathens to the message of hope and light.

I must fit into that misguided category, because I see both candidates with a whole host of human faults. I see both have their professional shortcomings, and I don't agree completely with the message of either one. However, I agree less with one because the numbers associated with his message don't add up; he is a mystery man who is like an onion - as more layers are peeled away, the aroma brings more tears than smiles; and he just has no demonstrated managerial experience to run anything at all, not even a neighborhood convenience store let alone a two-million employee worldwide operation. He has not shown the ability to handle high stress (other than long work hours) and no academic or experiential background which shows developed judgment in the combined application of the diplomatic and military sciences.

I enjoy a good intellectual argument where issues can be subjected to offense and defense. However, personal slamming and insults directed towards individuals who have accomplished more in their lives than dozens of others combined, and whose record - whether one believes in their philosophies or not - have been totally focused to national service, seems to be all some people want to do. There must be some type of peculiar joy or perverse jealousy to that, and I just am missing whatever that is.

It's one thing to dissect a person's professional resume as the person interviews for a job. It's another thing to ridicule the person and what they have done. That's just personal prejudice, and it's a losing fight to try to get most bigots to see beyond their prejudice or to even recognize how bigoted they actually are.

I respect all of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for their willingness to undergo what's probably the hardest "job interview" there is, and by having to endure what they do, especially from many people who have no idea what the job description for the President or Vice President contains. It's even worse when the "job interview" includes back-room slamming and insulting from bigots who believe they are open-minded (except towards others who differ in some manner or don't meet their predetermined image of the ideal).

All that being said, I'm going to follow my own advice. I've had it with the slamming, bigotry, snottiness and just downright nastiness which has become commonplace on this board. I had hoped that eventually there would be some maturity in discussion here. Instead, it often sounds worse than a bunch of high-schoolers backbiting those not on the "A" list or bored gossips looking for someone to spread rumors and tales about. So, it's time I bow out of this board. The gossips and bigots can have it.

Bucco, I wish the best of luck to you, Kahuna, Cabo and a few others who may continue to try to have civilized intellectual discussion here. Hope to see you around LSL in the evening (first $1.75 Margarita's on me...). Will be back in mid-December.

Best regards!